Can we have a nonwhite president, and remain a free country?
I’ve often criticized Rush Limbaugh for being too wordy and repetitive. But I just found out that earlier today he
stated in 38 words—and stated it perfectly—an idea on which, in the previous entry, I
expended 265 words.
Limbaugh said:
So is it possible that we really can have an African-American president? Or does having an African-American president paralyze the process by which people with that kind of power in our representative republic are kept, quote, unquote, honest?
More important than the conciseness and cogency, I never thought I’d see an establishment conservative say something like this, at all.
Obama is raising people’s consciousness like nothing we’ve ever seen. Maybe he’s the messiah after all and is transforming humanity, though not in the ways he and his supporters imagined.
- end of initial entry -
September 17
D. from Seattle writes:
How about a more concise version of Limbaugh’s statement (even if I say so myself :o)
“If only white men can be criticized for their policies without being accused of some evil “ism,” then only white men should be president.”
24 words!
LA replies:
This is good, but your sentence lacks a noun that the participle “being accused” is modifying (or, rather, it lacks a noun that the gerund “being accused” is being modified by—see discussion below). Who is being accused of some evil ism?
So you need to add the bolded words:
“If only white men can be criticized for their policies without the critics being accused of some evil “ism,” then only white men should be president.”
That’s 26 words.
However, we could still shorten and simplify it further to:
“If only whites can be criticized for their policies without the critics being accused of racism, then only whites should be president.”
22 words.
Marco Jawsario writes:
I did hear Rush Limbaugh say those very words over the radio, and like you I thought to myself—AMEN. As you said, perhaps Obama’s being a progressive means progress for us, and not them. Now, wouldn’t that be a delightfully wicked piece of irony.
LA writes:
I’m not sure this is correct:
“If only whites can be criticized for their policies without the critics being accused of racism, then only whites should be president.”
Technically, “being accused” is functioning in this sentence as a gerund, that is, as a verb in the “ing” form that is functioning as a noun and, in this case, as the object of the preposition “without.” If it is a gerund, then the noun that precedes it, “critics,” needs to be in the possessive case so that it is modifying the gerund:
“If only whites can be criticized for their policies without the critics’ being accused of racism, then only whites should be president.”
The issue of whether an “ing” word is a gerund (which functions as noun) or a present participle (which functions as an adjective) is explained at this webpage.
Laura G. writes:
“If only whites can be criticized for their policies without the critics being accused of racism, then only whites should be president.”
Amen to that, and it is a pitiful fact that this needs to be formulated for the thinking public. This reality is the epicenter of un-p.c.ness, and the direct result of the epic-p.c.ness of all who are whining about racism. Prayers for our nation are badly needed.
L’Shana Tova
David B. writes:
We knew it would come to this. Obama’s poll numbers have fallen and it was inevitable that the race card would be pulled out when that happened. Will the Republicans respond?
LA replies:
Personally I prefer to call it the racism card rather than the race card.
Indications are not good. It seems that the House GOP, including Eric Cantor, instead of attacking the outrageous charge, are instead saying, “We love blacks.” I have hoped that Cantor, as a Southern Jew with an old-fashioned Virginia drawl, would show some old-fashioned Southern fortitude. I hope he doesn’t turn out to be a liberal softie.
David B. replies:
Yes, I should have said the “racism card” instead of race card. I spend a lot of time on the crime news and stay in that frame of reference.
Matthew H. writes:
Your 22 word formulation perfectly states the reality of the current political scene. I see one flaw. You said:
“If only whites can be criticized for their policies without the critics being accused of racism, then only whites should be president.”
We can count on leftists to edit that down to “So you’re saying, ‘Only whites should be president’. Did everyone hear that?!!! He said…” , and so on. This will be greeted with loud whooping and foot stomping from the political peanut gallery, drowning out any further attempts at clarification.
We should keep hammering away at the theme that hiding behind the charge of racism is craven and unmanly. Given the exagerated importance blacks place on “respect” and asserting their “manhood” this would seem an especially sensitive target. Once the “racism” weapon has been directly and forcefully confronted, the discussion must return to the facts of the case or else degenerate into the left’s truest expression: street violence. Of course, that would further alienate them from what remains of the white middle class which, even now, determines the nation’s political fate.
We must aim for the heart. Leftism’s only remaining tool is the smear of “racism.” This is utterly indefensible and must be shown to be so and denounced at every opportunity. Additional assertions that “only whites should be president”, despite their logical necessity, just give the left further rhetorical oxygen. If a black president can only survive by resort to the racism charge, and that tool is destroyed, well, so be it. We hardly need to spell it out.
LA replies:
You start by raising this legitimate concern:
We can count on leftists to edit that down to “So you’re saying, ‘Only whites should be president’. Did everyone hear that?!!! He said…” , and so on. This will be greeted with loud whooping and foot stomping from the political peanut gallery, drowning out any further attempts at clarification.
But then you don’t deal with it, and the following two paragraphs are diffuse. It seems to me that you need to suggest a solution to the problem you identify above. Does the 22 word statement need more words? I thought that that was what you were going to say.
Matthew H. replies:
The racism charge should be constantly linked with concepts like: unmanly, craven, cowardly, wimpy, effeminate, running away, scaredy-cat, and so on. To successfully impute any such quality to a president renders him automatically unfit.
The following lines do this without giving the left the rhetorical purchase they gain by our uttering the words ‘Only whites should be president’:
Instead of answering legitimate questions, the president has his friends cry “racism.” That is unmanly. (15 words—Puttin’ it real plain)
If the president can’t respond to criticism without playing the race card then he is a coward. (17 words—an irrefutable syllogism implying the accuser’s unfitness for office without providing any rhetorical purchase to the enemy)
Crying “racism” is a craven way to dodge tough questions. (10 words—The media can’t argue with “tough questions.” Imputes cravenness to the act of crying racism without leaving one open to charges of “attacking the president” and such.)
The President of the United States can’t wimp-out by crying “racism” whenever he is questioned. (16 words—contrasting the gravity of the office with the contemptible tactics. Again, attacking the act not the man as well as calling him to a higher standard.)
The president can run from hard questions, but he can’t hide by charging “racism.” (14 words—echos Joe Louis—seems like a guaranteed winner)
I think this is the heart of the issue. When the racism weapon is defused, then let the best man win.
LA replies:
It seems you’re saying that the 22 word formulation is not helpful, because it allows the other side to attack us. Well, the statement is minimalistic, and needs more. The point of the statement is not to say, “We (whites) think that there should only be white presidents.” The point of it is to say, “Given liberal anti-racism, normal freedom of political opinion will be suppressed under a black president, and therefore, according to the liberals’ own statements (i.e., their calling legitimate opposition to Obama racist), having a black president is incompatible with liberty. In short, the statement is not OUR position, it is calling attention to the real meaning of THEIR position.
Your point, that we should ridicule the anti-racists, is interesting, but is separate from the topic of this thread.
Matthew H. replies:
Your statement is spot-on as an in-house statement for our side to see exactly what the issue is about. Want I want to create is an attack strategy, based on that clear-eyed understanding, which can be put across in the public media with the goal of shutting down the whole “all-criticism-of-Obama-is-racist” line of defense.
Given the adroitness with which the left/media can exploit any but the most carefully stated criticisms I do not think my concern over the ‘Only whites should be president’ line is over-stated.
Also, my point is not merely to ridicule the anti-racists but, by consequence, to try to fix in the public’s mind on just how loathsome and irrelevant the “racism” defense is at a time when we so desperately need strong, rational leadership.
Ferg writes:
If Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams were the President would this even be an issue? Or would the left be calling them Uncle Toms and every other nasty name they could think of, and doing so with impunity?
LA replies:
No. Yes. Yes.
Ferg replies:
Three words. Admirable! So the problem is not really a President of color, but a Left Wing President of color?
LA replies:
I’m not saying race is a matter of indifference. I want America to remain and to restore itself as a white majority country. But any country has minorities, and from time to time a minority person may become its leader, and, depending on all kinds of factors, that is not necessarily the end of the world. Obviously a conservative black would be a very different thing from a left-wing black.The left would hate a conservative black more than anything.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 16, 2009 10:36 PM | Send